In the summer of 2014, plaintiff James Godber, 72, was diagnosed with lung cancer. He had worked in the entertainment industry as a lighting technician for approximately 40 years, having started in 1960, at the age of 18. Godber claimed that, during that time, he was exposed to asbestos from gun plastic cement and other construction and lighting products, and that his exposures was a substantial factor in causing his lung cancer. Godber sued the manufacturer of studio lighting equipment, Mole-Richardson Co. Ltd.; the lessor of the studio lighting equipment, Mole-Richardson Rentals; a cement company, CalPortland Co.; and other companies that were believed to have distributed, manufactured and/or sold asbestos-containing products to which he was allegedly exposed. Godber alleged that the products were defectively designed and that the defendants negligently failed to provide warnings that disclosed the hazards of asbestos. Godber’s complaint was coordinated with hundreds of other cases that were pending in different counties that shared common questions of fact or law regarding direct and indirect exposure, and involved many of the same defendants. The cases were joined in one court, the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Many of those cases were put on hold while awaiting a decision regarding an appellate case involving indirect exposure. Godber’s complaint ultimately proceeded to trial against CalPortland and the Mole-Richardson defendants only. Godber claimed that his daily work with the lighting equipment over a 40-year career exposed him to asbestos-containing components that ultimately caused his lung cancer. He also claimed that he had occasional bystander exposure to asbestos from others working with Colton gun plastic cement while in his presence. Counsel for CalPortland and the Mole-Richardson defendants argued that Godber had a 37 to 50 pack a year smoking history and that Godber’s smoking habit was a more likely cause of his cancer., Godber was diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 72. Almost five years later, it is stable due to his monthly treatments with Opdivo, an immunotherapy treatment that works with the immune system’s T cells. Godber sought recovery for this past and future medical costs, past and future home health services, future loss of pension, loss of Social Security, and past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Supranee Godber, sought recovery for her loss of consortium and the value of home health aide services to Mr. Godber since 2014. Specifically, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award the Godbers over $14 million in noneconomic damages for Mr. Godber’s past and future pain and suffering; an unspecified amount for Ms. Godber’s loss of consortium; and over $2 million in economic damages for Mr. Godber’s medical care, past and future home health services, future loss of pension, loss of Social Security, and the past and future cost of household services. During trial, Judge Frank Johnson granted defense counsel’s motion for a partial nonsuit, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim against both Mole-Richardson and CalPortland.